Amid its wide avenues and towering skyscrapers, it’s easy to forget that New York City began as a small collection of homes outside an unimposing Dutch fort nearly four centuries ago. Though New York’s ascension to world city status might seem inevitable to modern observers, its present success is, in large part, the result of many conscious historical decisions. Whether this meant the building of harbors, the financing of canals or the laying of railroads, New York took the necessary steps to remain at the cutting edge while comparable cities like Baltimore, Philadelphia and Boston fell behind.

One decade into the 21st century, however, New York’s preeminence is threatened. The firms that have dominated the digital age are overwhelmingly anchored elsewhere, particularly in Silicon Valley. As Stanford bids against other universities for the right to operate a New York campus, Stanford’s appeal rests largely on the idea that it can create a hub of engineering innovation in the Big Apple in the mold of the University’s Silicon Valley milieu.

Likewise, a New York campus has a great deal of appeal for Stanford. Stanford’s symbiotic relationship with Silicon Valley has worked well for it in the past, yet future success often requires bold action in the face of opportunity. Many people thought that Leland Stanford was crazy when he announced his intention to build a first-class university on the West Coast. But Mr. Stanford knew that he had only one chance, and today the entire Stanford community benefits from his decision. The chance to build a campus in America’s largest city is another such opportunity. Stanford has made no secret of its enthusiasm for the expansion, but it must, if selected, see to it that the campus is designed with the best interests of the University in mind.

To simply build a miniature replica of Stanford in a new setting would be the wrong approach and potentially an expensive distraction from the main campus. Stanford has succeeded largely because of the powerful network effects that accompany its concentration and diversity of talent, and it would be a shame to see this dynamism diminished because of potential diversion of faculty and resources to New York. These non-financial costs of the expansion are necessarily speculative and nebulous, but they should be seriously studied and weighed before any final decisions are made.

If a New York campus is to succeed, it must complement Stanford’s current offerings, not compete with them. Stanford’s Hopkins Marine Station, though much smaller than the proposed New York expansion, demonstrates the concept quite well. Hopkins Marine Station takes advantage of its location on the Monterey Bay and adjacent to Monterey’s world famous aquarium to play a leading role in research that it would otherwise have no part in. Hopkins also provides opportunities for graduate students, recent graduates and even undergraduates to study the ecology of the California coast.

In New York, Stanford must take a similar approach, identifying which unique firms, institutions and University constituencies stand to benefit most from partnerships in New York, and building the new campus around those prospects. Though the focus of the campus should and will be on graduate education, it would be a shame to neglect undergraduates entirely. Since engineering students often have trouble studying abroad due to the heavy, linear nature of their coursework, it would be wonderful if such students were given an opportunity to study at the New York campus for a quarter if they so choose.

Whatever the outcome of the bidding process, New York will gain a prominent center of graduate engineering education, and perhaps sow the seeds of future economic success. By participating, Stanford has positioned itself for a rare opportunity to bolster its place in the world of higher education. Whether the opportunity will enhance Stanford’s goals to advance learning and public service or distract from them remains to be seen.